ABC News report...how does this make sense...

V

verti89

New member
ABC news did a short follow up story tonight on Virginia Law and a 'loophole' that allows people to buy guns legally at gun shows without a background check. This all stems from the VT massacre and a group of victims' families has been advocating this law be changed since the tragedy took place. My thoughts...

As with 95% of all other gun restriction theories and laws, all it accomplishes is screwing over the law abiding gun owners. How many gun toting gangster-wanna-be hoodlums are actually going to attain a firearm through legal means in the first place regardless of what the restrictions may be? Yes I will concede that there are probably instances in which stricter back ground check requirements, etc. would prevent a crime of passion. However, I also believe that by making it more difficult, if not impossible, for a person to legally own a gun, one of 2 things will occur. Either that person is going to attain a gun illegally which puts cash in the pockets of the criminals and furthers their business, or that person is just going to say 'oh well, im sure everything will be fine' and go on about his life. In essence they reduce the number of good guys with guns, which will only encourage the BGs with guns to do more bad.

Secondly, and more confusingly, the folks are attacking the gun show loophole because no background checks are required. Ok fine, I can see that. But the shooter in the VT tragedy bought his guns from licensed dealers after passing TWO separate background checks. So why are they attacking gun shows with this argument that that loophole is the cause of the problem??

Bottom line, I do think its ridiculous that a person with the documented and lengthy medical/mental history that that guy had, that he was able to legally obtain weapons. We don't put blind people behind cars, we don't let crazy people be parents, why the heck are we letting them carry guns legally? Don't get me wrong, im a total advocate of our rights, but I also think privacy rights in reference to gun ownership probably need to be flexible. However, I am so tired of the anti-gun people coming up with all these laws and rules that aren't going to do anything to stop crime. The crimes of passion that would be prevented would be NOTHING in comparison to the increase in violent crimes.

UGH ok...i feel somewhat better getting that off my chest. :rolleyes:
 
ABC news did a short follow up story tonight on...
Click to expand...

That was as far as I needed to read to know it was a.) fiction, b.) leftist extremist propaganda, or most likely, c.) both. If you get so-called "news" from leftist extremist TV, you get lies.
 
haha fair enough...BUT it wasn't my fault, i was watching the cavs game then i went to take a shower, came out and BAM propaganda...sneaky bastards
 
ABC news did a short follow up story tonight on Virginia Law and a 'loophole' that allows people to buy guns legally at gun shows without a background check.
Click to expand...

The "loophole" they are so concerned about is really private sales between individuals and it takes place everywhere, not just at gunshows. Sure a lot of it happens at gunshows too, but that would be because that's where people know guns are for sale (dealers and private citizens).


You've already mentioned that you are aware that Cho didn't buy via a gunshow or private sale and that the much-vaunted, "I'll protect us all" background check system FAILED.
 
Right. I suppose it is reasonable to call it a loophole, but it is totally incorrect to call it the "gunshow loophole". It's got nothing to do with gunshows.
Bottom line, I do think its ridiculous that a person with the documented and lengthy medical/mental history that that guy had, that he was able to legally obtain weapons. We don't put blind people behind cars, we don't let crazy people be parents, why the heck are we letting them carry guns legally?
Click to expand...
First of all, you're mixing things up a bit.

Being able to legally obtain weapons is not necessarily the same thing as being able to legally carry them.

Secondly, there is no law that prevents a blind person from purchasing a vehicle. There are laws that prevent them from driving one if they can't pass the vision test, but they can own as many as they want.

And if there are laws that make it illegal for a mentally ill person to procreate then I'm not aware of them.
 
I suppose it is reasonable to call it a loophole
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with this use of the word loophole.

loophole: an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded
Click to expand...

The law was written to require background checks for FFL transactions. While anti-gun people wish that the law had a broader scope, the fact is that private sales were never intended to be covered by the law passed by Congress. The use of the word loophole is no more than a dishonest way to suggest to the public that there is some type of error in the wording of the law when that is clearly not the case.
 
I agree. Loophole is a term intentionally used by the Brady group to give the impression that private sellers have found a way to buck the legal requirements of purchasing a gun.

Since private sales are legal and were never covered under this, it is not a loophole.
 
Since private sales are legal and were never covered under this, it is not a loophole.
Click to expand...

You mean people can get away with doing 64 in a 65 zone? No fair! The state police need that ticket money, and besides, you've probably done 66 in a 65 zone, so it all evens out, and anyway, it'll make us all safer.

Oh. Sorry. Thought I was I was an air-brained leftist busybody there for a minute. It was kind of fun to pretend I'm so important I get to boss everybody around, but then I woke up and realized I'm not in Cuba, communist China, or Chicago, after all.
 
Some folks want all private sales to go through FFLs. This is obviously an attempt to limit firearms - duh.

The gun show loophole is not understood by some. They imply all sales are not going through the background checks.

Folks who understand that argue that the shows do have dealers with checks but they are locales that are attractive nuisances that enable illegal private sales or straw person sales. That was the argument recently used in Austin, TX.

If the current NICS system disappeared - would gun crime increase - no way to know? That some folks get around NICS like Cho - well, he should have been reported and wasn't. So that isn't a good example. There were the NE Islamic terrorists who were supposedly stimied by the NFA laws.

However, since new guns do get into crime pathways - it doesn't work all the time.

Thus,there are two levels to the argument. I note that local gun stores have been quite vocal at times to shut gun shows down, for crass business reasons. If you want to argue against these types of report, be sure to be aware of and be able to counter the attractive nuisance argument with something beyond a rant about politics.
 
I too despise the connection of the term "Loophole" as it applies in media. What really torques my biscuits is when newspapers use the term. If they buy into the hype of the term- then why on earth are there so many firearms for sale in their want ads?
I know, it's probably just nit-picking on my part.
 
I'm kind of conflicted about the whole issue as it's one of the very few things proposed by the anti's that I could see possibly making some sort of difference. However, I've yet to see any data showing that legal private sales represent any significant percentage of crime guns. It seems to me that there are simply too many other means of getting guns such as straw purchases or outright theft for banning private sales to have any meaningful effect. Also, I see too many ways that whoever would be in charge of background checks to abuse their power (charge outrageous fees, make the process overly arduous) for me to be comfortable.
 
Can't put the genie back in the bottle..unless you trick him

So they trick and lie to us. The stated aim of gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. A blatent impossibility. However, since all guns are legally made and sold (the first time), anything that helps reduce the volume of guns made and sold works to keep guns out of criminal hands.

And if you buy into that, I have some ocean shore property in Kentucky, and some bridges for sale that you might be interested in.

The so called loophole is not a loophole. As others have noted, the law was written only to cover FFL sales. This was the intent. It was not a mistake, no matter how much the anti gunner want you to think it was.

The media's agenda is clear to anyone with eyes to see, ears to hear, and a brain that still thinks. IT is usually called leftist/liberal, but what it really is, is elitist.

What the majority of these people want is not to keep guns out of the hands of everyone, but to keep guns out of the hands of everyone BUT THEM, and their hired servants, the military, police and private security. People that they believe they control.

Never did understand how wearing a uniform (and a gun) on the job made one safe and trustworthy while without one (with a gun) you are a menace to society. Maybe I just have a skewed view of the world. But I think its more likely that they do.;)
 
I'm kind of conflicted about the whole issue as it's one of the very few things proposed by the anti's that I could see possibly making some sort of difference.
Click to expand...

Webleymkv, don't take the bait.

The only thing that will reduce behavior by criminals is reducing the number of criminals at large.

It works like this. Infringe on a criminals access to his/her chosen tool, but leave the criminal "at large", and they will find another method of access or switch to another tool (or variant of their preferred tool) and continue to behave in a criminal fashion.

Remove the CRIMINAL from this equation and the crime stops.

But

Criminals are thinking, adaptable, critters so they are hard to catch and even when caught are very practiced at looking hangdog to garner sympathy, hiring lawyers, and gaming the system, which is why the anti-rights types go for the easy targets like inanimate tools that don't dodge, disguise themselves, or hire lawyers.

So the bans come and the GOOD and USEFUL functions of the tool are denied to those who would use them for the benefit of society (while the criminals continue their rampage).

The only items I've ever felt should be controlled/restricted are "area effect" stuff. That is to say, if your "oopsie" moment could take out the entire neighborhood then I might (I say might) start to consider infringing on your choice.
 
I strongly disagree with this use of the word loophole.


Quote:
loophole: an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded
Click to expand...
First of all, I'm not saying that it's a loophole, I'm saying that I suppose it's reasonable to call it a loophole and here's why I would say a thing like that.

If one considers the gestalt of firearm purchase laws then you are absolutely correct. Private purchases are not a loophole because clearly federal law only regulates sales through FFLs in terms of requiring background checks.

However, if one considers that the intent of the Brady law (or at least the persons who created and lobbied for the Brady law) was to insure that all firearm purchasers undergo a background check then it is quite reasonable to call private purchases a "loophole" since that is a way for a person to purchase a firearm with no background check. In essence, if you don't like the intent of the Brady law (background checks) then you can evade the intent of the statute, contract or obligation by purchasing from a private seller.

Whether we like it or not, there are people who specifically purchase only from private sellers to evade the background check requirement imposed by federal law when purchasing from FFLs. Some on general principle, some to avoid a paper trail, and some because they can't pass the background check.

That wasn't really the point of my post. The point is that even if one is magnanimous enough to concede that purchasing a firearm without a background check constitutes a loophole it's still not reasonable or accurate to call it a "gunshow" loophole because it's got nothing to do with gunshows.

I could have said it a different way--like this:

The phrase "gunshow loophole" is two lies for the price of one. There really isn't a loophole because there is no federal law that attempts to impose a background check on all firearm purchases and secondly the fact that private purchases don't require a background check has nothing to do with gunshows.
 
Is this the same program that aired almost a year ago? Where they had the police officer burst in a classroom with a paintball gun and then promptly shot the kid acting as someone with a CCW to "prove" that you can't protect yourself with one.:barf:
 
The phrase "gunshow loophole" is two lies for the price of one. There really isn't a loophole because there is no federal law that attempts to impose a background check on all firearm purchases and secondly the fact that private purchases don't require a background check has nothing to do with gunshows.
Click to expand...


Excellent post.
 
Quote:
I'm kind of conflicted about the whole issue as it's one of the very few things proposed by the anti's that I could see possibly making some sort of difference.
Webleymkv, don't take the bait.

The only thing that will reduce behavior by criminals is reducing the number of criminals at large.

It works like this. Infringe on a criminals access to his/her chosen tool, but leave the criminal "at large", and they will find another method of access or switch to another tool (or variant of their preferred tool) and continue to behave in a criminal fashion.
Click to expand...

I understand that there are plenty of other way in which criminals can and do acquire firearms. Specifically, straw purchases and theft seem to be the two most obvious means. Hence my confliction.
 
If the .gov would develop a quick and convenient way for gun owners to run a check, I suspect most private gun sellers would use it. It would not have to be compulsary in order to be effective. It would not necessarily have to be very complete either, just a record of all current felons would be enough.

I'm pretty sure that a private citizen can not even use the current system.

The problem is, there is no one with any imagination in Washington to figure this out. Also, if it doesn't allow representatives to limit your rights or take your money, they aren't interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top